The Pennsylvania State University University Park Campus

Sustainability in Marcellus Shale Development

EDSGN 100

Section 001

Design Team 3

Triple Threat

Fall 2016

Kyle Bambu

Mike Spero

Harry Polychronopoulos

Submitted to:

Professor Berezniak

College of Engineering

School of Engineering Design, Technology and Professional Programs

Penn State University

5 Dec 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

2. PROJECT SPONSOR

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4. NATURAL GAS

4.1 Origin

4.2 Sources

a. Conventional Reservoirs

b. Unconventional Reservoirs

c. Technically Recoverable Resources (TRR)

4.3 Uses

4.4 Benefits

5. MARCELLUS SHALE

5.1. Location

5.2. Basic Geology

5.3. Depth

5.4. Recoverable Gas Resource

5.5. Current Production

5.6. Economic Benefits in Pennsylvania

6. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROCESS

6.1. Site Development: Planning Phase

6.2. Well Site Preparation: Execution Phase

6.3. Drilling and Completing Wells: Performance Phase

6.4. Well Production and Operations: Operational Phase

7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

7.1. Contamination of Drinking Water Aquifers

7.2. Chemicals Used in Fracking Process

7.3. High Water Usage

7.4. Fugitive Methane

7.5. Surface Runoff from Drill Pads

7.6. Spills and Leaks of Hydraulic Fracking Fluids

7.7. Leaks From Pits Liners and Storage Tanks

7.8. Handling, Treatment and Disposal of Fracking Wastewaters

7.9. Infrastructure Impact

a. Land Use

b. Pipelines

c. Noise

d. Traffic

e. Processing Facilities

8. SUSTAINABILITY

9. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

9.1. Federal Regulations

9.2. Federal Exemptions

9.3. Pennsylvania Regulations

10. WATER TREATMENT PRODUCED WATER

10.1. Background

10.2. Common Practice

10.3. Findings

10.4. Recommendations

11. CONCLUSIONS

12. REFERENCES

1

Sustainability in Marcellus Shale Development

1. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

Conceive an environmentally smart and efficient way of treating water such that marketable by products are the result. Environmental safety is of importance. While environmental concerns need to be addressed, profitable solutions to problems should be incorporated to improve one important industry practice in shale development.

2. PROJECT SPONSOR

Chevron is the sponsor of this project report. It is the second largest oil and gas company in the United States and strives to provide reliable and affordable energy solutions. Chevron provides countless jobs worldwide and has been producing innovative solutions to address concerns within the oil and gas industry for over 150 years.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The goal of this project is to come with a new and innovative ways to treat the brine water produced by fracking. The solution should be treated on-site and produce some marketable by-products. The project also needs to consider sustainability/environmental concerns, regulations, safety, cost, schedule/cycle time, and transportation.

4. NATURAL GAS

4.1 Origin

Early formations of natural gas were discovered by the Chinese in 500 B.C. Gas was moved via bamboo pipelines and used to boil sea water. Some researchers also found evidence of primitive wells drilled using bamboo poles. Natural gas is primarily methane, CH4, with some ethane, propane, and other impurities. Natural gas is odorless and colorless. This gas is formed from the decaying of plant and animal life like oil. A few types of natural gas exist—coalbed methane, tight gas, and shale gas—that require hydraulic fracturing. With the two former types have decreased in production, the latter is expected to continue increasing through year 2035 as shown in Figure 1. As seen from the figure, shale gas may represent nearly 50% of production by year 2035 when compared to other types of gas production (Figure 1).

4.2 Sources

a. Conventional Reservoirs

2

Conventional reservoirs of natural gas are usually easier to get to than unconventional reservoirs. Over thousands of years, oil and gas migrate upward and get trapped in sedimentary formations that are covered by an impermeable barrier—usually rocks like bedrock. Figure 2 shows an example of conventional gas reservoirs. The “seal” denoted in the figure is impermeable rock or clay. Oil and gas become trapped below this seal. To tap these reservoirs, conventional wells are drilled that employ the usage of steel shafts and tubes to reach the gas. In many aspects, gas in conventional reservoirs are easier to tap than unconventional reservoirs. These conventional wells usually don’t need to be drilled as deep or use horizontal drilling and/or fracturing (Figure 2).

b. Unconventional Reservoirs

Unconventional reservoirs tap gas sources such as coalbed methane, tight gas, and shale gas. All of these require hydraulic fracturing to extract and have been more difficult and costly to exploit until recent advances in technology. Unlike conventional gas reservoirs, unconventional reservoirs are trapped in their original source rock. As such, tapping these sources require much deeper drilling. Figure 3 provides a look at conventional versus unconventional reservoirs. In the figure, shale, coalbed, and tight gas require fracturing of the nearby rock to collect the gas, whereas the conventional gas is easy to collect with use a vertical pipe. Hydraulic fracturing, the process of using water, sand, and other additives to break up rock formations, is needed to sufficiently tap unconventional reservoirs (Figure 3).

c. Technically Recoverable Resources (TRR)

Technically recoverable resources is the term used to describe the amount of resources that can be produced profitably. The Energy Information Administration estimates that nearly 2,203 trillion cubic feet of unconventional gas is available to extract in the United States. Under current economic and operational conditions, only 167 trillion cubic feet are considered recoverable. This still represents a large portion of reserves in the United States and continued developments in gas extraction may result in more of these resources becoming obtainable.

4.3 Uses

Natural gas has been used for centuries, dating back to the Chinese when they used it to boil salt water to produce drinkable water. Now, it is used as a main source of electricity. Today our consumption of electricity has been increasing at a relatively large rate which has resulted in a greater need for fuel sources such as natural gas. Figure 4 shows the distribution of natural gas consumption in the United States. As shown, natural gas is increasingly becoming used in producing electricity. Natural gas power plants produce power by igniting the natural gas and heating a liquid until it turns into steam. This steam is then used to turn a turbine to generate electricity (Figure 4).

4.4 Benefits

3

Natural gas has many benefits that make it a clear contender as a top fuel source today. It is one of the cleanest fossil fuels to burn with a high efficiency rating. In most instances, natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than alternatives. This is an important factor in determining sustainability and environmental concerns.

5. MARCELLUS SHALE

5.1. Location

Marcellus shale is very prominent throughout the Appalachian basin and most of Pennsylvania. As seen in figure 6 through hash lines, vast amounts of Marcellus shale is present in the northeastern part of the United States. Depth and thickness of the shale can vary from 0 feet in central Pennsylvania to 9,000 feet in southwestern and northeastern parts of Pennsylvania. Thickness of the shale ranges anywhere from 20 feet to several hundred feet (Figure 6).

5.2. Basic Geology

Marcellus shale is an organic-rich sale that was deposited during the Middle Devonian time period about 390 million years ago. The shale appears black in color and has a sedimentary structure. It is easy to split along the “grain” or bedding plane, as is it is formally called. Figure 7 provides a look at Marcellus black shale. As can be seen, the shale is broken apart in many small, thin layers. Shale can be described as thin layers of rock stacked on top of each other. Shale contains concentrations of limestone, iron pyrite, siderite, and other substances (Figure 7).

5.3. Depth

This rock formation can extend as deep at 9,000 feet or as shallow as 0 feet in certain locations throughout PA and the Appalachian basin.

5.4. Recoverable Gas Resources

The U.S. Geological survey reports gas reserves in the Marcellus shale reach about 1,925 billion cubic feet while industrial and academic reports suggest there could be as much as 50 to 500 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. A more recent report in 2009 suggests Marcellus shale gas recoverable gas reserves ranges from 100 to 200 trillion cubic feet. Although numbers can vary widely based on research, estimates are continuing to be explored to determine a more exact number of recoverable resources.

5.5. Current Gas Production

Currently, in Pennsylvania, there are 66 operators on wells and nearly 7,800 active wells. In 2014, over 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was produced. Some studies show that Marcellus shale wells have an average lifespan of about 8 years with a 65% drop in production

4

over the first three years and an 8% decline per year after that. However, according to figure 8, gas production levels seem to be leveling off in PA around 15,000 million cubic feet per day (Figure 8).

5.6. Economic Benefits in Pennsylvania

There are numerous economic benefits in Pennsylvania for the production of natural gas. In 2015, PA produced nearly 17% of the United States’ total natural gas sold. In 2011, the oil and natural gas industry provided a huge 4.7% of total employment in the state. Furthermore, the industry was responsible for 5.1% of the state’s total labor income. According to a study by Natural Resources Economics, more than 211,000 PA jobs could be generated due to fracking in the Marcellus Shale region. According to figure 9, PA experienced an increase in employment of over 250% from 2007 to 2012—second only to North Dakota’s percent change. Further increases in natural gas employment are expected to continue (Figure 9).

6. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROCESS

6.1. Site Development: Planning Phase

The planning phase of hydraulic fracturing can take years to execute properly. Engineers must provide detailed drawings and plans for well pad sites, wells, and supporting infrastructure and facilities. The planning phase is vital to the hydraulic fracturing process as it sets the base for a smooth execution phase.

6.2. Well Site Preparation: Execution Phase

After completion of the planning phase, the execution phase can begin with the preparation of the well site. Well site pads must be constructed in preparation for the drilling and completion of the wells. This phase is critical to ensure safe and successful completion of the wells. While larger site pads may be beneficial to allow for more space to work, this results in a larger environmental footprint. A well-executed planning phase can help to determine the proper tradeoff in terms of footprint size. A large portion of the footprint at the well site is dedicated to temporary water storage. Water storage is important to protect the surrounding land and ground water from contamination. Most operators have made the move to tanks to ensure protection of ground water against contaminated water. Although tanks can cost more than other solutions, they are important for sustainability practices in mind. Finally, a portion of the well pad is lined with a plastic liner to contain any fluids from the drilling to completion activities.

6.3. Drilling and Completing Wells: Performance Phase

Following the completion of the well site, drilling can commence. Drilling rigs can now operate on the site and drill several horizontal wells from a single pad location. The horizontal drilling methods are a large step forward in efficiency in the natural gas industry and a key aspect of sustainability. With this new technology, only one well pad is needed for

5

multiple wells. After the wells are drilled, hydraulic fracturing can begin. This process involves the introduction of water, sand, and additives to promote fractures in the rock formations. Figure 5 shows that a sand and water mixture is used to keep the fissures open while natural gas can flow out through the well (Figure 5).

6.4. Well Production and Operations: Operational Phase

Lastly, once the wells are drilled, natural gas can start to be produced from the wells. Wells are tied into production infrastructure and into pipelines used to transport the gas to end users. Any portion of the well site that is not being used anymore can be returned to its natural state. Production equipment is near the wells and is used to separate the gas from the liquids. The liquids, usually a brine solution, is then stored in tanks on site where it will eventually need to be removed for treatment or disposal.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

7.1. Contamination of Drinking Water Aquifers

50% of the United States population relies on groundwater for drinking water. Also, this water is crucial for growing crops, so it is essential to maintain its sustainability. However, this is not an easy task because groundwater, which lies in aquifers, is very susceptible to contamination. One way that the aquifers get contaminated is by toxic runoff such gasoline, oil, road salts and other various chemicals that seep into the ground. If an individual consumed said contaminated water, health problems can occur.

7.2. Chemicals Used in Fracking Process

A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that there are nearly 700 chemicals that can be used in the fracking process. Also, it was discovered that about 10% of all the chemicals used in this process were undisclosed. The main chemicals used are hydrochloric acid, methanol, and hydrotreated light petroleum, which roughly accumulates to 65% of the sum of the chemicals being used. This should raise red flags because some chemicals are known to be dangerous and cause skin irritation, chemical burns and more.

7.3. High Water Usage

Fracking has other problems besides pollution. One of these problems includes a high usage of water. The range for how much water fracking uses varies greatly, but is consistently alarming. For example, Niobrara Shale wells require approximately 3.3 million gallons of water. In comparison, Marcellus Shale uses approximately 5.6 million gallons of water per well. This is an alarming amount of water used in the process.

7.4. Fugitive Methane

6

This word was created by the energy conservatives. It means methane that has escaped the pipeline and is exposed to the air. Recent studies from the University of California at Berkeley suggest that 6 to 8 percent of methane produced from natural gas wells is fugitive. However, an EPA report suggests only 1.7 percent escapes. Therefore, the overall amount is hard to distinguish. If methane leaks instead of burns, it is 11 times worse for the environment in terms of greenhouse gases.

7.5. Surface Runoff from Drill Pads

Surface runoff is among the biggest concerns with fracking. Runoff is dangerous because it carries the toxic chemicals from the drill site into the ground and eventually the aquifer. Most fracking cases are sufficient enough to prevent the chemicals leaking into the ground. However, wells in New York are under investigation and have up to 21 changes to improve upon including the casing to prevent runoff and chemicals from entering the aquifers.

7.6. Spills and Leaks of Hydraulic Fracking Fluids

Spills and leaks of hydraulic fracking fluids is a result of poor operating equipment. The main piece of equipment that prevents this from happening is the casing that surrounds the drill inside of well. If this part fails, the fracking liquid will leak. The reason this is a problem is because the fracking liquid consists of dangerous chemicals that would be detrimental to water if exposed.

7.7. Leaks From Pits Liners and Storage Tanks

Produced water that comes to the surface after hydraulic fracturing contains high concentrations of dissolved solids. Brine leaks and spills from pits and tanks can harm soils, leave barren salt scars, and can negatively impact wetlands.

7.8. Handling, Treatment and Disposal of Fracking Wastewaters

The main concern with the handling, treatment, and disposal of fracking wastewater is mainly the flowback water. Flowback water is high in total dissolved solids, salts, and may contain sand, heavy metals, oils, grease, man-made organic chemicals. These additives aid in the fracking process. Common handling of this fluid is to store it in tanks until it is ready to be disposed of. From there, common practices usually call for the fluid to be dispersed into the ground well below ground water levels.

7.9. Infrastructure Impact

a. Land Use

To begin a fracking operation, the company performing the operation must map out a huge portion of unused land that has natural gas. Getting permission to operate on a specific piece of land is a very lengthy process and requires permits. Fracking also can leave a permanent scar on the land and can damage the ecosystem indefinitely.

7

b. Pipelines

Pipelines negatively affect the surrounding area near the pipeline. If the company is not careful they can accidentally puncture a pipeline that could lead to millions in damages. As a result, landing surrounding the pipeline needs to be cleared to ensure that it is protected from any potential obstructions like falling trees.

c. Noise

Fracking causes disruption in the neighboring areas. When a company is operating on an area it creates a large amount of noise pollution due to the drilling. Also, the amount of trucks and increases in workers contributes further to the added noise pollution.

d. Traffic

Traffic is affected by these fracking wells indirectly. According to the Wall Street Journal, the creation of a well produces a heavy amount of traffic due to a huge increase in truck volume that is needed to carry all of the well materials.

e. Processing Facilities

Processing facilities are needed when a fracking well is constructed. Fracking wells use water that has been mixed with harmful chemicals, so a processing facility can rehabilitate the water and redistribute it to the environment for further use. Also, storage tanks need to be set up on site in order to hold flowback fluid or potentially hold fluid in the event of a spill.

8. SUSTAINABILITY

According to dictionary definition, sustainability is the ability to be sustained or supported. In terms of the environment, it means not being harmful to the quality of the environment or depleting all natural resources. Sustainability in regards to Marcellus Shale can relate to the environmental impact hydraulic fracturing can have. The gas industry must ensure that the areas surrounding wells are not vitally ruined for future generations. The industry must also recognize the dangers of flowback water and ensure that it is disposed of properly. In theory, sustainability in hydraulic fracturing means not vitally harming the environment while seeking a resource. There must be a medium ground between environmental standards and the search for natural gas.

9. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

9.1. Federal Regulations

8

Hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation methods are mostly exempt from federal environmental regulations and legislation. Many federal exemptions and absence of federal regulations leaves the job of regulating the industry up to the states.

9.2. Federal Exemptions

Many safeguards for the production of oil and gas are missing from federal regulations. Many environmental statutes have exemptions for oil and gas production, which leaves this sector largely unregulated. Some exceptions include the safe drinking water act, the clean water act, the clean air act, the resource and recovery act, and the national environmental policy act. The safe drinking water act exempts fracking unless diesel is used in the process. The clean water act exempts oil and gas production sites from certain pollution control requirements, including a storm water runoff permit requirement. The other three exemptions mentioned include the oil and gas industry not needing to monitor air pollutants to being exempt from some requirements for environmental impact reviews.

9.3. Pennsylvania Regulations

Pennsylvania recently updated regulations for the oil and gas industry. One of the newer regulations includes the review and protection of public resources if a well is near or in public land. Also, secondary containment equipment must be at unconventional well sites during any phase of the fracturing process. New guidelines were included to prevent spills and releases of any harmful substances. Finally, an applicant for a well permit will be required to identify any resources that could potentially be impacted and to notify a public agency if certain land features or zones are near the well site. These are some of the more major regulations that have been introduced by Pennsylvania legislation on hydraulic fracturing.

10. WATER TREATMENT - PRODUCED WATER

10.1. Background

During the hydraulic fracturing process, water and chemicals are used to stimulate the fissures in the rock in order to extract the natural gas. Water is mixed with sand and other chemicals and then injected into the well. After creating cracks in the Marcellus Shale, flowback water, a brine solution with heavy metals and chemicals, quickly comes back. Typically, this flowback water is stored in tanks or pits before treatment, recycling, or disposal. Figure 10 shows the most common cycle of water throughout the hydraulic fracturing process. The steps shown in the figure were described previously (Figure 10).

10.2. Common Practice

Common practice in the gas industry is to pump the flowback water into disposal wells. Gas companies rely on the operation of these wells for the efficient disposal of the brine that is produced during the hydraulic fracturing process. Under the Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations, there are six different well classifications. Many of the

9

injection wells are class II wells. Currently, there are 144,000 class II injection wells in the United States. Nearly 80% of these wells are used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which helps to produce more oil and gas by putting additional pressure on areas surrounding the wells.

10.3. Findings

Saltwater disposal wells, known as SWDs, are a special subset of Class II UIC wells and are allowed for the safe disposal of fluids resulting from hydraulic fracturing. An important factor in using SWDs is the ease of disposal. Storage tanks are set up near a fracking site after the hydraulic fracturing is complete. Then, a SWD can be set up near the site in order to efficiently and cheaply dispose of the flowback water. Common practices involve drilling hundreds of feet deeper than the deepest known aquifer. After drilling a well with numerous casings to prevent leakage or spillage, the SWD can begin operation. The average cost of disposal for a barrel of fluid is usually less than $0.25 if the oil company operates its own well. If a commercial SWD is used, prices range from $0.50 to $2.50 a barrel. However, when using this method of disposal, transportation costs can increase the total cost of disposal. In northern Pennsylvania, where commercial disposal wells aren’t plentiful, the brine water may have to be transported to Ohio or West Virginia. This can increase costs by $4.00 to $6.00 a barrel, bringing the net cost of disposal in the Marcellus Shale region to $4.50 to $8.50 a barrel. In addition, gas companies need to consider the wear on roads and release of carbon dioxide emissions as a result of long transportation. Using a SWD in a nearby state, can cause 52,500 road miles of wear and 88 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per well.

The geology in Pennsylvania is not conductive to brine disposal. Currently, there are only eight Class II wells that are permitted in the state of Pennsylvania. The eight wells combined account for 8,667 barrels of brine per day. In comparison, some wells operated in Texas can dispose of over 26,000 barrels of brine per day—from a single well. In comparison to Pennsylvania, Texas has around 12,000 SWD Class II wells.

Common concerns about SWDs include ground water contamination and the possibility of an increase in geological activity. SWDs can be known to start small earthquakes that can result in minor property damage. For example, in Youngstown Ohio, a Class II well used to dispose of fracking wastewater was the cause of nearly ten minor earthquakes—the largest a magnitude 3.9. It had later been discovered that the well had been built on top of a previously unknown fault line which resulted in the minor quakes. Also to note are the environmental concerns relating to groundwater. Refer to sections 7.1, 7.5-7.7 for more information regarding contamination concerns.

Through research, several other methods of treatment are available but at varying prices. Three potential solutions include those of boiling the water, employing a membrane, or using electrodialysis. To note, traditional wastewater treatment plants cannot effectively clean fracking water. There are many contaminants in the water including radioactive substances, heavy metals, and a large concentration of salts.

Boiling the water is a potential solution but after transportation and boiling, costs can run upwards of $17 a barrel. Plus, the heavy salts cause extreme wear on the industrial boilers that can result in massive costs to replace equipment that ages quickly. Research has been slim in terms of boiling flowback water and there are likely numerous concerns associated

10

with this potential solution, including but not limited to the environmental impact of potentially contaminated water vapor.

Another option is to use a membrane to clean the brine water. Figure 11 shows a potential solution provided by the company Oasys Water. In this system, the brine solution is driven through a series of semi-permeable membranes. As shown in the figure, water moves through the membrane system and results in fresh water. Some of that water used in the draw solution where it is heated and sent back through the system so that the brine solution permeates from the high concentration brine solution to the clean, fresh water. Oasys Water has determined that their process could treat water for nearly $2 a barrel. This is a competitive price for brine disposal when compared to the common practice of pumping the solution back into the ground.

Lastly, electrodialysis could be used to effectively separate water from contaminates. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have determined that using an electrical current could effectively separate the fresh water from the salty solution. Electrodialysis is usually used with relatively low-salinity water, but brine water can be used despite its high salinity. Salt conducts electricity very well and successive stages of electrodialysis can remove a majority of the contaminates. Researchers realize that conventional filtration may be needed to remove chemical impurities in the water. However, this could further add to the cost. Electrodialysis is untested in the gas industry, but it is an upcoming solution.

The aforementioned findings are three possible solutions to the flowback water produced during the hydraulic fracking. Compared to the common practice, other methods could be used to treat the brine water (Figure 11).

10.4. Recommendations

While common practices are very cheap, they are not extremely environmentally friendly. Spillage or a break in SWD tubing could result in the contamination of ground water which would be detrimental to the environment. Furthermore, disposing of flowback water deep under the surface can result in minor earthquakes that can cause property damage. While there are other methods to dispose of fracking fluid, membrane treatment is the most effective and cheapest of the treatment solutions. Although pricing for membrane treatment can result in a slight increase in costs associated with the treatment and transportation process, it is a more environmentally friendly solution as opposed to pumping fluids back into the ground. For these reasons, it is highly recommended to use the solution appearing in figure 12. Dirty water is taken from the tank seen on the right and is put into a membrane filter. The filter is permeable and allows cleaner water to permeate through the filter to a different box. Some water is then refiltered through the system to promote the permeation from the brine to fresh water. Each section of the filter system is in separate boxes to ensure that the system is easy to transport to the well site. Clean water can then be transported to a disposal site where the water can be properly dumped in a stream or put back into a drainage system. This system was recommended because of its relatively cheap cost yet adherence to sustainability and environmentally friendly concerns (Figure 12).

11

11. CONCLUSIONS

Overall, hydraulic fracturing was found to be relatively environmentally safe as long as certain standards and ethics guides are met. Hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale region is important to the future production of natural gas resources. Figure 13 shows the systems diagram of hydraulic fracturing from inputs to outputs such as the disposal of flowback water and the production of natural gas. In summary, the membrane solution that was recommended for the treatment of the flowback water is cost effective and a sustainable solution. However, further developments in the future may result in numerous effective treatment solutions that become available (Figure 13).

12. REFERENCES

"Center for Responsible Shale Development, CRSD." Center for Responsible Shale Development. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Chameides, Bill. "Fracking Water: It's Just So Hard to Clean." The Great Energy Challenge

Blog. N.p., 2013. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Coletti, Kristen. "Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region of the U.S." NU Writing. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Conventional Wells." Conventional Gas or Oil Wells. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016

"Environmental Benefits of Natural Gas." Environmental Benefits of Natural Gas |

American Gas Association. N.p., 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Final Regulations for Oil and Gas Surface Activities (Amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapters 78 and 78a, Subchapter C) (n.d.): n. Pag.

"Fracking Waste Wells Linked to Ohio Earthquakes." The Green Grok. N.p., 05 Sept. 2013.

Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Fracking: Good News for Pennsylvania." Energy From Shale. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. Fugitive Methane and Greenhouse Warming (n.d.): n. Pag.

"Getting the Salt Out: Electrodialysis Can Provide Cost-effective Treatment of Salty Water

from Fracked Wells." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Groundwater Contamination." Groundwater Contamination. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

12

Hulick, Kathryn. Fracking. Place of Publication Not Identified: Essential Library, 2016. NRDC Policy Basics. Web.

Mantell, Matthew E., P.E. "EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Technical Workshop #4 Water

Resources Management." (2011): n. pag. Web.

"Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling Information." Welcome to Marcellus-Shale.us. US, n.d. Web.

"Marcellus Shale Wastewater Issues in Pennsylvania (Water Quality)." Water Quality (Penn State Extension). N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Mellino, Cole. "EPA Report Finds Nearly 700 Chemicals Used in Fracking." EcoWatch. N.p.,

2016. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Natural Gas-Chronological Development." Alternative Energy and Shale Gas Encyclopedia (2016): 732-33. Marcellus Shale Natural Gas D L Teve Opment. Cornell University. Web.

Natural Gas Drilling in Pennsylvania. StateImpact, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. "Oasy Water - Technology." Oasys. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Oasys Water's Next-Generation Technology Platform Extends the Impact of Membrane

Solutions for Industrial Wastewater Reuse - Oasys." Oasys. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"PA DCNR - Geology - Marcellus Shale." PA DCNR - Geology - Marcellus Shale. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Pennsylvania State Energy Profile." Pennsylvania Profile. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Shale Gas and Other Unconventional Sources of Natural Gas." Union of Concerned

Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Research, For Outreach &. How Much Natural Gas Can The Marcellus Shale Produce? (n.d.): n. pag. Http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/news/PDFs/gasreserves_day.pdf. PSU. Web.

"The Impact of Natural Gas Extraction and Fracking on State and Local Roadways -

Journalist's Resource." Journalist's Resource. N.p., 04 May 2016. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"The Marcellus Shale Gas Boom in Pennsylvania: Employment and Wage Trends : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"The Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research - Maps." The Penn State

Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research - Maps. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

13

"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." EIA-

914 Monthly Production Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"Uses of Natural Gas." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Biello, David. "How Can We Cope with the Dirty Water from Fracking?" Scientific American. N.p., 2012. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Weller, T.f. "Produced Brine Underground Disposal Injection Cost Model." Proceedings of

SPE Eastern Regional Meeting (1993): n. pag.

Williams, Dr. David. "Seven Ways to Purify Water." Dr. David Williams. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Natural gas sources by percentage

Figure 2. Geology of natural gas resources

Figure 3. Geological formations and well types

Figure 4. Historical usage of natural gas in the United States

Figure 5. Hydraulic fracturing process

Figure 6. Location of gas deposits

Figure 7. Marcellus Shale

Figure 8. Natural gas production in the U.S.

Figure 9. Gas industry employment

Figure 10. Water cycle in hydraulic fracturing

Figure 11. Membrane treatment system

Figure 12. System model- Membrane Solution

Figure 13. System diagram